IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v8y2020i10p1782-d427996.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Survey on Blockchain Consensus with a Performance Comparison of PoW, PoS and Pure PoS

Author

Listed:
  • Cristian Lepore

    (Computer Science Department at University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Michela Ceria

    (Computer Science Department at University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Andrea Visconti

    (Computer Science Department at University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Udai Pratap Rao

    (Computer Engineering Department, S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India)

  • Kaushal Arvindbhai Shah

    (School of Computer Science and Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Amaravati 522237, India)

  • Luca Zanolini

    (Institute of Computer Science, University of Bern, 103012 Bern, Switzerland)

Abstract

Blockchain technology started as the backbone for cryptocurriencies and it has emerged as one of the most interesting technologies of the last decade. It is a new paradigm able to modify the way how industries transact. Today, the industries’ concern is about their ability to handle a high volume of data transactions per second while preserving both decentralization and security. Both decentralization and security are guaranteed by the mathematical strength of cryptographic primitives. There are two main approaches to achieve consensus: the Proof-of-Work based blockchains—PoW—and the Proof-of-Stake—PoS. Both of them come with some pros and drawbacks, but both rely on cryptography. In this survey, we present a review of the main consensus procedures, including the new consensus proposed by Algorand: Pure Proof-of-Stake—Pure PoS. In this article, we provide a framework to compare the performances of PoW, PoS and the Pure PoS, based on throughput and scalability.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristian Lepore & Michela Ceria & Andrea Visconti & Udai Pratap Rao & Kaushal Arvindbhai Shah & Luca Zanolini, 2020. "A Survey on Blockchain Consensus with a Performance Comparison of PoW, PoS and Pure PoS," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-26, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:10:p:1782-:d:427996
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/10/1782/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/10/1782/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Max J. Krause & Thabet Tolaymat, 2018. "Quantification of energy and carbon costs for mining cryptocurrencies," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(11), pages 711-718, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giuseppe Varavallo & Giuseppe Caragnano & Fabrizio Bertone & Luca Vernetti-Prot & Olivier Terzo, 2022. "Traceability Platform Based on Green Blockchain: An Application Case Study in Dairy Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Ernest Barceló & Katarina Dimić-Mišić & Monir Imani & Vesna Spasojević Brkić & Michael Hummel & Patrick Gane, 2023. "Regulatory Paradigm and Challenge for Blockchain Integration of Decentralized Systems: Example—Renewable Energy Grids," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-27, January.
    3. Guangjie Lv & Caixia Song & Pengmin Xu & Zhiguo Qi & Heyu Song & Yi Liu, 2023. "Blockchain-Based Traceability for Agricultural Products: A Systematic Literature Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-32, September.
    4. Zeinab Teimoori & Abdulsalam Yassine, 2022. "A Review on Intelligent Energy Management Systems for Future Electric Vehicle Transportation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-23, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arfaoui, Nadia & Naeem, Muhammad Abubakr & Boubaker, Sabri & Mirza, Nawazish & Karim, Sitara, 2023. "Interdependence of clean energy and green markets with cryptocurrencies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Joerß, Tom & Hoffmann, Stefan & Mai, Robert & Akbar, Payam, 2021. "Digitalization as solution to environmental problems? When users rely on augmented reality-recommendation agents," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 510-523.
    3. Xuejia Sang & Xiaopeng Leng & Linfu Xue & Xiangjin Ran, 2022. "Based on the Time-Spatial Power-Based Cryptocurrency Miner Driving Force Model, Establish a Global CO 2 Emission Prediction Framework after China Bans Cryptocurrency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Michael L. Polemis & Mike G. Tsionas, 2023. "The environmental consequences of blockchain technology: A Bayesian quantile cointegration analysis for Bitcoin," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(2), pages 1602-1621, April.
    5. Dorfleitner, Gregor & Muck, Franziska & Scheckenbach, Isabel, 2021. "Blockchain applications for climate protection: A global empirical investigation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    6. Mario Arias-Oliva & Jorge de Andrés-Sánchez & Jorge Pelegrín-Borondo, 2021. "Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Factors Influencing the Use of Cryptocurrencies in Spanish Households," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, February.
    7. Ye, Wang & Wong, Wing-Keung & Arnone, Gioia & Nassani, Abdelmohsen A. & Haffar, Mohamed & Faiz, Muhammad Fauzinudin, 2023. "Crypto currency and green investment impact on global environment: A time series analysis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 155-169.
    8. Küfeoğlu, S. & Özkuran, M., 2019. "Energy Consumption of Bitcoin Mining," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1948, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    9. Fatih Ecer & Tolga Murat & Hasan Dinçer & Serhat Yüksel, 2024. "A fuzzy BWM and MARCOS integrated framework with Heronian function for evaluating cryptocurrency exchanges: a case study of Türkiye," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 1-29, December.
    10. Lisha, Liu & Mousa, Saeed & Arnone, Gioia & Muda, Iskandar & Huerta-Soto, Rosario & Shiming, Zhai, 2023. "Natural resources, green innovation, fintech, and sustainability: A fresh insight from BRICS," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    11. Mingbo Zheng & Gen-Fu Feng & Xinxin Zhao & Chun-Ping Chang, 2023. "The transaction behavior of cryptocurrency and electricity consumption," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Hector F. Calvo-Pardo & Tullio Mancini & Jose Olmo, 2022. "Machine Learning the Carbon Footprint of Bitcoin Mining," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-30, February.
    13. Chunling Li & Nosherwan Khaliq & Leslie Chinove & Usama Khaliq & József Popp & Judit Oláh, 2023. "Cryptocurrency Acceptance Model to Analyze Consumers’ Usage Intention: Evidence From Pakistan," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    14. Sarker, Provash Kumer & Lau, Chi Keung Marco & Pradhan, Ashis Kumar, 2023. "Asymmetric effects of climate policy uncertainty and energy prices on bitcoin prices," Innovation and Green Development, Elsevier, vol. 2(2).
    15. Abakah, Emmanuel Joel Aikins & Wali Ullah, GM & Adekoya, Oluwasegun B. & Osei Bonsu, Christiana & Abdullah, Mohammad, 2023. "Blockchain market and eco-friendly financial assets: Dynamic price correlation, connectedness and spillovers with portfolio implications," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 218-243.
    16. Asif, Muhammad & Searcy, Cory & Castka, Pavel, 2023. "ESG and Industry 5.0: The role of technologies in enhancing ESG disclosure," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    17. Johannes Sedlmeir & Hans Ulrich Buhl & Gilbert Fridgen & Robert Keller, 2020. "The Energy Consumption of Blockchain Technology: Beyond Myth," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(6), pages 599-608, December.
    18. McMorrow Jake & Esfahani Mona Seyed, 2021. "An Exploration into People’s Perception and Intention on using Cryptocurrencies," HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 109-144, August.
    19. Oluwaseun Fadeyi & Ondrej Krejcar & Petra Maresova & Kamil Kuca & Peter Brida & Ali Selamat, 2019. "Opinions on Sustainability of Smart Cities in the Context of Energy Challenges Posed by Cryptocurrency Mining," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    20. Sondes Mbarek & Donia Trabelsi & Michel Berne, 2020. "Are virtual currencies virtuous? Ethical and environmental issues," Post-Print hal-02434877, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:10:p:1782-:d:427996. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.